| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Dear Colleagues, thank you to Vincent and Dima for having clarified and improved the text of Motion M006.01. The voting period, on the modified text (attached to this message) begins now and closes on November 9. Best regards Nathalie
Attachment:
P1788F_level2_B.tex
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
level2a.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
> On 09 Oct 2016, at 18:48, Dmitry Nadezhin <Dmitry.Nadezhin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Vincent and wg1788,
>
> I changed "difficult" to "accuracy-relaxed".
>
> I failed to formulate concisely your suggestion.
> Instead I added such a requirement.
> If the result of textToInterval(s) constructor is wider than
> the hull of Level 1 value of s then exception shall be signaled.
> So application is warned about relaxed accuracy of implementation.
>
> The modified text is in the attachment.
>
> -Dima
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: vincent@xxxxxxxxxx
> To: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 5:32:47 PM GMT +03:00 Iraq
> Subject: Re: Motion M006.01: discussion period begins, until October 17
>
> On 2016-10-05 08:39:34 -0700, Dmitry Nadezhin wrote:
>> Vincent,
>>
>>> I don't like the word "difficult" in this context, because it
>>> may not actually be difficult. I would rather use a word like
>>> "advanced" / "enhanced" / "extended".
>>
>> Do you like a word "accuracy-relaxed string" ?
>
> This is beter, IMHO.
>
>>> In §6.7.5, I would replace "any interval" by constraints obtained
>>> with a basic algorithm to have a reasonable behavior, such as:
>
> I think that there was an error in (2). It was:
>
> 2. If L < U, then return the hull of x.
>
> It should be like (4), i.e. one should have:
>
> 2. If l <= u, return any interval I such that
> [l,u] included in I included in hull(L,U).
>
> The only difference is that this is a bit relaxed with rational
> literal bounds. But since L < U implies l <= u (used in (4)),
> one can remove (2) entirely. I hope that this is now correct.
>
>> I like your suggestion about L and U.
>> What will your rules say about semi-infinite interval with rational
>> bound like "[p/q, +inf]" ?
>
> This should be similar to the corrected (2) and (4) where U = [l,+oo).
>
>> I think that U is not relevant here and it should return I such that
>> [p/q, +oo) included in I include in [hull(hull(p)/hull(q)), +oo).
>
> I suppose that you meant: [inf(hull(hull(p)/hull(q))), +oo)
>
> But saying that U = [l,+oo) is simpler and avoids a dependency on
> the rules from (1).
>
> --
> Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
> <level2a.pdf><P1788F_level2_B.tex>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathalie Revol INRIA Grenoble - Rhone Alpes
LIP - projet AriC tel: (33) 4 72 72 84 36
Ecole Normale Superieure de Lyon fax: (33) 4 72 72 80 80
69364 Lyon Cedex 07, France Nathalie.Revol@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/nathalie.revol/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------